Mueller's spokesman, Peter Carr, declined to comment. The president's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said, "We don't discuss conversations we've had or have not had with the office of special counsel."

1/ This same story has been published by US media 7 times before in just the last year—with almost no change in any of its details. Each time Trump-Russia experts like me have said the story is false. Each time it has been false. The media won't stop publishing the story, though.

2/ The sourcing for this false story never changes. The first source(s): "government officials," i.e. members of the administration, which habitually lies about Mueller's work. The second source(s): lawyers for those Trump associates who've been before the grand jury. Same issue.

3/ Tonight's report uses recycled quotes—or, the same quotes from the same sources who were wrong last time. The seventh time this false story was published we were told Mueller was "tying up loose ends"—exactly the quote we got *this* time, too. It's no more true now than then.

4/ The report hedges so many bets it doesn't even *mean* anything. The hed says Mueller could issue a report "as soon as February"—another way of saying, "Don't be upset with us if it's *late 2019* instead, because we *did* say 'as soon as February' not 'in February,' after all."

5/ The report's euphemisms cover weak sourcing. Its key source is "a lawyer who's been in contact with the Mueller team"—which makes you think s/he got the skinny *from* Mueller. Nope—it's just a lawyer for a witness, who was "in contact" with Mueller's team as part of their job.

6/ The report has *zero* info from Mueller's leak-free team—a fact it's at great pains to hide from you. It says Mueller is "expected to" send a report to DOJ "as soon as" February—neglecting to mention that the folks who have these "expectations" *have no basis for them at all*.

7/ The sources' rationale for their expectations is just rehashed legal analysis. Former prosecutors on TV have said—rightly—that the feds try to end a cooperator's cooperation before their sentencing. But Trump-Russia experts have said—rightly—this case won't follow that model.

8/ All of the evidence we have—every scrap of it—says Mueller has many months to go. EXAMPLE 1: Indictments are still expected (including *by the defendants themselves*) for—at a *minimum*—Donald Trump Jr., Erik Prince, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Randy Credico, and Paul Erickson.

9/ EXAMPLE 2: Mueller, his team, or affiliated federal prosecutors just sat down with Manafort and Cohen for a total of 130+ hours—yes, you read that right. According to tonight's NBC News report, those 130+ hours were *meaningless*—they're not producing any new charges or leads.

10/ EXAMPLE 3: Mueller just opened up a new front in his investigation: the "grand bargain" Trump struck pre-election to collude with not just Russia but Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, and possibly several other nations. You don't open a new front when you're about to close shop.

11/ EXAMPLE 4: It was just reported that Mueller is fighting—and winning—an effort to get a foreign corp to *begin* production of a huge stock of relevant records currently being held overseas. If he's still working on getting *core documents* for his case, how is he almost done?

12/ EXAMPLE 5: It was just reported that Mueller wants a sitdown with Trump—meaning he has unanswered questions on collusion he thinks Trump has the answers to. If/when Trump fights this request, that fight *alone* will take *months* to play out—and will forestall a final report.

13/ The report *admits* its sources are bad. Per the report, its sources "either didn't know or wouldn't say whether Mueller has answered the fundamental question he was hired to investigate." So they know he's almost done—but not how far along his work is? How does *that* track?

14/ The report's rehashed legal analysis is *wrong*. It says "one sign Mueller is close to finishing is he has moved forward with the sentencing of those he credited with substantial cooperation." There are many reasons he might do this; in the next tweet I'll offer two key ones.

15/ REASON 1: Any witness who cooperated with Mueller will be charged with Perjury or Making False Statements if they deviate from their story on the stand later on. This holds even if they've been sentenced. REASON 2: The probe could take *years* and judges won't wait that long.

16/ If the report were accurate, it'd be to the Mueller team's benefit to comment on it—but they won't. Trump is positioning Whitaker or Barr to thwart (or fire) Mueller—and one way he could survive would be to say he's almost done. Given the chance to do so by NBC, he *refused*.

17/ The report's sources are *bound* to say what they did. If you represent an uncharged Trump ally, your spin must be that he *won't* be charged. Thus: "Defense lawyers in the case have been talking among themselves about their belief that the investigation is coming to an end."

18/ Sentences like this are just bad journalism: "The sources who spoke to NBC News warn that a few major outstanding matters could complicate Mueller's endgame." The sources have no *clue* what Mueller's endgame is—and admit it—yet they're now topping ignorance with speculation?

19/ When the sources top their ignorance with speculation, they move—*every time*—to *eliminate* the supposed scoop they gave to NBC. Thus, "A few major outstanding matters could complicate..." So we already hedged on February—with "as soon as"—and now we're hedging on our hedge.

20/ Upshot: following the Trump-Russia case is a full-time job, and many people—including many who are pundits on the subject—simply don't have the subject down. So what we get instead are these desperate "Uh, okay, but maybe it's almost over?" stories that are just embarrassing.

PS/ Note that even if this false story were true—that Mueller *could* (only could!) be done by February, which is 2 months away—it doesn't mean the public would see a *report* then. Thus, NBC News' biggest hedge: "it would not be an easy process [to ever make the report public]."

PS2/ The combined effect of these false stories about Mueller's work is to bolster the Trumpist delusion that Mueller has come up empty. Such reports make the Mueller probe seem relatively simple—rather than dozens of interweaving narratives that are all still being investigated.

PS3/ I've seen the ill effect of these false stories firsthand. Publishers are holding off publishing books on Trump's misconduct on the false belief—fueled by bad sourcing—that Mueller may soon issue a report. He won't—but try convincing folks otherwise when NBC's playing along.

PS4/ And that's exactly why White House and Trumpist-defense-lawyer sources are pumping this false story for now the *eighth* time: (1) they know their lies will be repeated uncritically, and (2) it is *enormously* beneficial for their clients for this false story to be believed.